From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23911 invoked by alias); 11 Apr 2012 07:46:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 23898 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Apr 2012 07:46:09 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,SARE_LWSHORTT X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-vb0-f47.google.com (HELO mail-vb0-f47.google.com) (209.85.212.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 07:45:56 +0000 Received: by vbbfr13 with SMTP id fr13so505081vbb.20 for ; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 00:45:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.34.227 with SMTP id c3mr2768214vdj.5.1334130355307; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 00:45:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.58.12 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Apr 2012 00:45:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20120411070150.GM6148@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> References: <4F7B356E.9080003@google.com> <87lim3p8pv.fsf@catnip.gol.com> <4F84B448.4090208@codesourcery.com> <201204110127.30744.ebotcazou@adacore.com> <20120411070150.GM6148@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 07:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Switching to C++ by default in 4.8 From: Gabriel Dos Reis To: Jakub Jelinek Cc: Eric Botcazou , Bernd Schmidt , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Miles Bader , Torvald Riegel , Xinliang David Li , Richard Guenther , David Edelsohn , Diego Novillo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-04/txt/msg00385.txt.bz2 On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:01 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 01:27:29AM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote: >> > In the short term, a partial conversion to C++ gains us nothing. Even >> > ignoring the bugs inevitably caused by any such project, we'll end up >> > with a strange mish-mash of styles for a very long time, which instead >> > of helping anyone can only lead to confusion. I don't see anyone >> > committing to invest the time in converting even an entire subsystem l= et >> > alone the whole compiler. Maybe a subsystem conversion would be a good >> > thing to try on a branch and then present the results to the community >> > for evaluation. This would be better than lowering the barrier now for >> > all sorts of random but uncoordinated conversion efforts. >> >> IMO the killer conversion would be vec.[ch], which is a very clever piec= e of >> code but is almost impossible to use without copy-and-pasting existing c= ases. >> I think that a proper C++ implementation would be a very convincing argu= ment. > > But IMHO not sufficient for a switch. =A0The GCC C++ proponents should do= more > on a branch to convince. =A0Yes, the syntactic suger for vec.h isn't very > nice, but the actual implementation is very clever and heavily tuned for > GCC's needs; if we convert to C++ just because of vec.[ch], we open > ourselves to what is being discussed in this thread, people who would like > to turn GCC codebase into yet another LLVM, which not everybody finds > actually very readable and maintainable code, would start doing so. I have been having difficulty following the twists and the turns and the goal post moving. Are you essentially requiring to see GCC rewritten in C++ before we switch to C++? -- Gaby